Supreme Court considers red-light cameras

Cities that used red-light cameras before the state passed a law authorizing them in 2010 did so unlawfully and motorists who were fined by the cities should get refunds, the Florida Supreme Court was told Thursday.

A red-light camera at the intersection of Bahia Vista and Tuttle in Sarasota. The camera will keep an eye on eastbound driver on Bahia Vista. (Nov. 30, 2011; Herald-Tribune staff photo by Mike Lang)

The cities contend they had the authority to use the cameras before the law.

Now, Florida’s highest court will have to settle the issue, after two state appellate courts split on the cameras’ legality, with one court upholding the pre-2010 red-light cameras and the other invalidating them.

The case doesn’t directly impact the 77 cities and counties now using red-light cameras under the 2010 Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, named after a Manatee County man whose wife fought for years to pass the legislation after her husband was killed when a motorist ran a traffic light.

But a decision either way could influence the debate over the continued use of the cameras that will occur in the 2014 Legislature.

At issue in Thursday’s hearing were cases involving motorists in Orlando and Aventura, a Miami-Dade County community, that were fined by camera systems installed before 2010. They were representative of 37 communities that installed the red-light cameras prior to the 2010 state law.

An adverse ruling by the Supreme Court potentially could impact fines imposed on thousands of motorists and involve millions of dollars. In Orlando, nearly 50,000 citations were issued before July 2010, involving $4.3 million in fines, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

But some cities that used the pre-2010 cameras have already settled and will not be impacted by a court decision invalidating the cameras, including Lakeland and Bradenton, according to Jason Weisser, one of the lawyers challenging the cameras. Other cities, like Sarasota, that initiated the cameras after the state law authorized them in 2010 will also not be impacted.

Lawyers for the cities told the Supreme Court that they had the authority to set up the cameras under their “home rule” powers, given the fact that the state law did not expressly prohibit them.

“Our position is that the Legislature explicitly gave cities the authority to regulate, restrict and monitor traffic in their jurisdictions using security devices,” said Edward Guedes, a lawyer representing Aventura. “And that under our municipal home rule power when the Legislature didn’t specifically say how to do it, we were then able to implement our own systems.”

When the Legislature passed the 2010 law, the local governments modified their ordinances to comply with the new provisions, including the $158 fine that is split between the state and local governments.

Lawyers challenging the Orlando and Aventura red-light cameras said they were representative of a “hodgepodge” of local red-light camera ordinances that conflicted with the state’s regulations, called the “uniform traffic code.”

“We have different penalties from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have different penalties from red light to red light,” said Andrew Harris.

He also said some the penalties exceeded the state fine for running a red light, which was then $125. Harris said in the case of Orlando, a violation could potentially result in the loss of a business license or the ability to obtain a building permit.

The justices will issue their opinion at a later date.

Rep. Dave Kerner, D-Lake Worth, a lawyer whose firm is challenging the pre-2010 cameras, said the court’s eventual decision may have an impact as lawmakers renew the debate over the cameras’ use.

“If the Supreme Court sides with us and says that all that money was collected unlawfully, it really shines the light on the monetary aspect and the lengths that these cities went to to collect all that money unlawfully,” he said.

Senate Transportation Chairman Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, who opposes the cameras, is waiting for a legislative study analyzing the cameras’ use, including safety factors as well as issues such as the timing of yellow lights and the amount of money they generate.

In the last budget year, the cameras resulted in nearly $120 million in fines. Brandes has called the growing camera use a “backdoor tax” for the local governments.

However, the Florida League of Cities, which filed a brief in support of the Orlando and Aventura ordinances, has defended the cameras as a safety tool.

Lloyd Dunkelberger

Lloyd Dunkelberger is the Htpolitics.com Capital Bureau Chief.
He can be reached by email or call 850 556-3542.
""More Dunkelberger"
Make sure to "Like" HT Politics on Facebook for all your breaking political news.

Last modified: November 7, 2013
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published without permissions. Links are encouraged.